Canal Street Fights Back?

How to fight back against the invasion of Hen and Stag Parties and heterosexual 'Zoo' visitors to Manchester's Canal Street?  We know it's a problem from the research of Skeggs and Moran among others, and we know that the Equality Act makes discrimination impossible.  Here's a rather brilliant solution currently on the doors at Via...

Lesbian couple file lawsuit against Hawaii hotel

A fascinating story has emerged from Hawaii.  According to the Pink Paper, a couple from Los Angeles have filed a lawsuit against a bed and breakfast in Hawaii, claiming they were refused a room because they were lesbians.

The story has parallels with the B&B controversies in this country which saw the Equality Act goods and services provisions tested legally, politically and socially.  It's interesting to see a similar sort of testing in another part of the world, indicating the process that such laws perhaps inevitably, must go through.

Check out the full story here.

The Equality Flip-Side

The Telegraph reports today that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is examining whether "gay-only" guesthouses breach new laws designed to prevent people being treated unfairly in the provision of goods or services. My students will tell you that I do bang on about this aspect of equality. That is to say, gay venues that appear to discriminate against straight people - the gay hotel or the gay pub and bar. The ghetto has continued to discriminate in subtle ways despite equality legislation - bouncers asking "this is a gay bar, are you sure it's your type of venue gents?" Someone once said this to me and I remain unsure whether he was saying I was too unattractive to enter the venue or simple looked too straight.

Anyway, I think the review is right and over-due. It raises some very serious questions for those who have sought to see equality as something to be imposed upon others, and not apply to themselves. The trouble with this simple right-wing narrative is that it fails to appreciate that there's a reason for 'gay' bars, hotels and other spaces and it is a desire to appropriate a space that can be deemed 'safe'. Safe from fear, and safe from violence. We still need such spaces today. However, we must recognise that to argue such a position is to also argue against equality.

Easy on the Mud

The easiest thing in the world to do is to throw out allegations, to make sweeping assumptions, to throw mud. The publication by the Daily Mail of a cartoon this week by their cartoonist in residence, Mac, plays into a narrative of the Daily Mail as a hateful newspaper. Certainly, the Daily Mail has a history of publishing articles that many - including myself - have viewed as homophobic. It's tone is one of bewilderment at the modern society the paper finds itself read within but it would be wrong to assume that every cartoon, that every article, every journalist at the Mail is somehow homophobic and a spreader of a hate. Easy, certainly, but wrong.

Following the B&B legal case this week, the Daily Mail satirised the incident in the cartoon pictured above. The caption beneath reads: “Isn’t that romantic, George, dear? Mr and Mr Smith would like the bridal suite.”

The Mac cartoon that has got the cyberworld talking, and led to this comment piece on Pink News, that suggests the hoteliers are respectable and civilised, and having to 'take in' burly gay men with Nazi tattoos. It is not an assertion that all gay men are burly skin-head Fascists. It does suggest two worlds colliding, which they did in the B&B case. It's also worthwhile checking out this piece from the Guardian which further explores the role of religion.

This is a couple - middle aged, conservative in appearance, running a clearly labelled 'Christian Hotel' and calmly dealing with a gay couple that are clearly anathema to them. Crucially, they are accepting the couple.

For me, the Nazi tattoo is significant, but not denoting gay Nazis - but rather to denote the 'Fascism' of law; the intolerance of law, and the assertion of monolithic truth and state power over the individual.

The logical conclusion of this argument is to advocate the freedom to hate and that's the problem with this position. What of those whoa re racist? Ageist? Where ought the line to be drawn and at what point should the law be an intervening force?

Civil Partnerships, Marriage and Discrimination

Most of you will have heard the news yesterday about the victory in the B&B discrimination case. As Pink News reported, Martin Hall and Steven Preddy, who are civil partners, sued devout Christians Peter and Hazelmary Bull for sexual orientation discrimination, after being being refused a double room at their B&B. The case was supported by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, but the Judge in the case quashed the reports (which I confess I thought were true) that the couple had gone to the hotel originally at the behest of Stonewall to test the law in this area.

The hotel owners, Peter and Hazel Bull, are devout Christians who do not allow couples who are not married to share double rooms because they do not believe in sex before marriage. Mr and Mrs Bull maintained that their refusal to accommodate civil partners in a double room was not to do with sexual orientation but 'everything to do with sex'. The owners said the restriction applied equally to heterosexual couples who are not married.

The case was therefore not as simple as this being a Christian couple who don't like gay people, it was, do we need to treat a Civil Partnership the same as a marriage for the purposes of the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007? The answer from this case was a clear yes.

The Guardian has an interview with the winning couple below.

There is of course another dimension to this case, the Christian couple and the impact this will have had upon them. They consider themselves good decent people. They try to live their life as good citizens. I have little doubt that this case would have been devastating to them. Each day feeling like a week. It's easy to forget in the instant knee-jerk world of cyberspace and journalism that they are human beings but we should resist that easy route. They have honestly held beliefs, and they tried to warn people of their approach to unmarried straight couples and gay couples on their website. Yet, they lost. The law in this area is fairly straightforward and legally, it is quite right they lost. Morally, we do not accept the signs - so common in the 1950's - that B&B's would place: 'No Blacks, No Irish'. It is morally right that we reject discrimination based on homophobia. The trouble with this is what about religion? It remains the elephant in the room that law-makers, lawyers and policy-makers dodge around making pragmatic and - typically English - messy law.

If a moral argument about homophobia can assert itself in the provision of goods and services, why not the provision of marriage services? Why should the provision of marriage services by Churches be limited to straight people? If a Civil Partnership is the equivalent of a straight marriage, surely Civil Partners can - and must - therefore be allowed to marry in Churches. No? One to ponder. The current law represents a compromise between the religious and those who reject homophobia (I am not suggesting all religious people are homophobic), and the question no-one seems willing to really debate is where that line should be drawn, and why it is currently drawn in totally different places on different issues of policy and law.

Finally, let's ease off the B&B owners. They can now get on with their lives. Let's focus the criticism where it is needed - a law that is discriminatory and muddled.

B&B Discrimination Legal Action

You just know Teresa May is dreading being ask to comment about this story. Remember the controversy around the gay couple who went to a B&B but were turned away by the Christian couple because of their sexuality? Well, thanks to Liberty it's back. Part of me wonders what will be achieved by this -apart from potentially making some money for the gay couple and certainly making money for the lawyers. They're drawing on Equality Act provisions to bring a case and they are supported by Liberty who say:

"This case is as important to the principle of non-discrimination as Rosa Parks' refusal to go to the back of the bus. A business with a "no gays policy" is as bad as one that says "no blacks; no Irish". Liberty defends the rights of religious groups to preach their beliefs, even when we disagree with them, but not to discriminate in the provision of goods and services."

I think the Legal Director of Liberty got a little carried away there. Yes, they shouldn't have been turned away and yes, if they wanted to, they should have brought legal action. However, this will now become a struggle of movements -gay verses Christian and the various interest groups will line up behind each group. That leaves me feeling uneasy. Nonetheless, if choices must be made, then I wish Michael Black and John Morgan the best of luck in their case. Homophobia must be challenged - wherever it is found - and the law should apply to everyone.

I'm also curious what this means for 'The Swiss' - the bed and breakfast at the centre of this. It has a rather impressive website and it does look a lovely location - you can see why they chose it. One thing puzzles me. Take a look at the virtual tour. It seems to have a very odd bed arrangement -it looks like a sex club orgy space or is that just me? Go, on take a look. In fact, if you are gay, lesbian, or bisexual book in. Pack the place out. Bonk yourself silly. It'll drive them nuts and if they turn you away, bring a claim. Just a thought.

Interestingly, their website also has a 'conditions' section which states:

Check in/check out:	You may check in from 4pm onwards; latest 10 pm You must check out by 10 am This condition also applies for guests staying more than one night
Pets:	None please!
Payment:	Payment is accepted by cash or cheque (with bankers card). US dollars and Euros are accepted at the prevailing tourist rates
Deposit:	50%
Cancellation:	After a firm booking has been made, unless we can re-book, we will charge 50% on any cancellation.
No shows:	We will charge 100% of the full booking value in the event of a no show

Strangely, there's no mention of homosexuals. Can't think why.

Straight Italian Couple and the Gay Cruise

I have some sympathy for the straight Italian couple at the centre of this story regarding a cruise holiday. The Daily Mail ran with the story and in a nut shell the story is as follows: 'An Italian couple are suing a shipping line for £2,800 after claiming they were not told a relaxing holiday they had booked was in fact on board a ship hosting Italy's first gay cruise'. There are so many aspects to the story that I love - they paid for it with supermarket loyalty vouchers, they encountered friends who they didn't know were gay, the reproduced pictures used to advertise the cruise (pictured right) and they assumed the mass media presence was because someone famous was on board. It must have been horrendous to be surrounded by people who have a different sexual orientation, enjoying a holiday and you feeling like such an 'outsider'. I don't see how they couldn't have known it was a gay cruise - the 'gay' people on board had to know it was a gay cruise and no other 'straights' found themselves on board. Oh it's a funny old world.

Read the story here.

What does equality mean to you?

Danny Dyer popped up on This Week last night in the context of a discussion on equality (hence the gratuitous photo). The show can be viewed again on the programme website here. On that page, the Danny Dyer item is pulled out as the main video so you don't have to sit through the whole programme to watch it. It has a really good intro video narrated by Andrew Neil at the start. His opening question to Dyer was "what does equality mean to you?" and it's a useful starting point. The Gay Times Chandler Cline blog is pointing to the possibility that the Tories might attack the equality bill. That may be true but they wold be doing so because, as with the Dyer conversation, the focus in an equality discussion usually comes back to issues of money and class rather than issues of race, sexuality and gender. This is particularly the case given that is what the government is choosing to highlight. I don't think you can suggest that a Tory front shadow cabinet with two male members openly gay and in civil partnerships and opposition to this bill does not equate to being gay. On a personal note, I think there is some good stuff in the bill, some bad stuff, and some stuff that needs amending. That I question the present structure of proposed new burdens for business on wage visibility does not make me anti-women or anti-gay any more than it does those who seek to scrutinise and question this bill.

On gender, would we not argue that Lesbian bars can be a good thing? Groups that are aimed at only gay youth useful? These are discriminatory practices and environments but surely we would say they can be a positive thing? Equality is not therefore always a good thing and we should embrace a more nuanced debate on this area. Perhaps a better term is 'fairness'.

Equality Bill 2009

The Government's new Equality Bill has it's first reading on Monday and LGBT Labour are asking for views on the bill via Twitter as part of an apparent effort by Labour to promote something that isn't to do with the economy. They are running with the slogan 'Make Equality a duty, not an option' which will do much to tackle the ever growing vision of a controlling Government. Meh, perhaps not.

It even has it's own campaign website which can be viewed here. Given there wasn't much of a campaign for the bill the Government now appears to be manufacturing a campaign for the bill, which they will then satisfy as if by magic with this wonderful bill. To be fair to Harriet Harman in particular the bill does include some provisions that have been floated for some time but they've been pulled into a rag bag that is the Equality Bill.

The bill apparently focuses upon two aspects of the LGBT agenda - bullying in schools and transgender equality. Teachers will have to promote equality. That seems a sensible aim but what does that mean - what about someone who challenges civil partnerships and marriage on queer lines? What scope is there for questioning? I'm keen to see how the legislation has been drafted on that issue. Yes, school bullying is an important issue and as a former school governor, I'm well aware of the importance of anti-bullying policies but the Government needs to make sure it helps schools, teachers, parents and LGBT youth rather than introducing a well meaning but badly drafted clause that fails to help.

'Gender reassignment' will be covered in the Goods and Services legislation. I'm not sure what that exactly means but it sounds a sensible step. I did have some serious concerns about the Goods and Services legislation but I have to admit they do not appear to have been realised. That said, nor do they appear to have made a major impact.

The bill will also apparently include provision to amend 'the laws surrounding discrimination and incitement to hatred will be extended to cover ‘affiliation’ with the transgender community. Given that transphobic discrimination occurs just as much to those considering or beginning gender reassignment as to those who have already undergone reassignment, this will be an important part of tackling inequality and levelling-up the law to align with other forms of protection'.

Again, this sounds interesting and I'll be keen to see how the legislation is finally drafted.

Cooking with Semen

I swear I don't know if this is just a joke but there's now a semen recipe book (I was once given a recipe for cooking a bulls testicles and this surely beats that) and it does seem to be genuine. The book can be purchased here. On the site you can see the book cover and above that are arrows that allow you to navigate around the book online so you can view a few recipes. Bon appétit. lol.

Recession Hits Pink Pound?

It seems to Pink Pound is also affected by the recession. Well maybe, maybe not. It may be that the credit crunch has made life more difficult for the chain CloneZone but the Pink Pound angle makes it more of a story for sites such as Pink News which reports the chain has gone into administration. The opening of a Newcastle store relatively recently was taken by some (including me) as a positive development of the gay 'scene/village' in Newcastle. It's closure will leave another derelict building when the area should be getting it's act together. Their site is still operating and promoting a 50% off sale.

It may be that even with £37.48 off, people are less inclined to buy a genuine cast of Gage Weston's 10" penis.

Retox Attempts Detox

A story appeared in the Sunderland Echo this week that had a strange timing. A couple of weeks ago I was meeting a friend in Sunderland for coffee and walking there he flagged up a bar to me - Retox. In particular, a banner outside which stated "Retox under new management! Now straight! Top totty dancers on match days". Apparently, the bar had tried to be 100% gay but hadn't attracted enough punters for the venture to work. So what else to do? You turn straight. Now that's mildly interesting in itself but I was slightly horrified by the banner. I found it insulting but I wouldn't go further, certainly not as far as offensive. Yet the story in the Echo indicates that one person did find it offensive. Messages were left in gay chat rooms stating the banner was offensive and one person actually phoned the police to complain and in a statement to the Echo, Northumbria Police said: "Police are currently working with Sunderland Arch to find an appropriate solution to this complaint." Ironically this story is the best thing that could happen to retox. Manly straight boys can now enter without fear of encountering a homosexual. Hurrah!

Read the full story at:http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/Gay-bar-goes-straight.4106042.jp

The Retox website can be viewed at: http://www.clubretox.com/

Audrey, Her Dad and the Meat Market

I'm off to Montreal later this month for the Law and Society Conference and one bar I might encounter is Le Stud. The bar is the focus of a little piece in The Chronicle (a Montreal paper). The piece focuses upon one woman's campaign to have access to a gay bar. My favourite paragraph in the story reads:

'This is a place that promotes itself as a "manly meat market" where "men love men" and where TV screens display gay porn around the clock. THIS, Audrey, is where you decided to take your dad for a drink? You're fighting for your right to drink here, and dragging your dad along for the ride as well? Rosa Parks would be proud! '

Read the full story at: http://www.westislandchronicle.com/article-208402-Le-Stud-ruling-lacking-in-le-logic.html

In the UK the legal position is complicated by the ill-thought out Equality Act.

"Gay Lifestyle" Store Opens in Newcastle

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Blair Unbound

As 2007 draws to a close it's worth remembering that 2007 saw the long anticipated (at least for Gordon Brown if no-one else) transition from Blair to Brown. The end of 2007 saw the second volume of Blair's Seldon biography published - Blair Unbound. I've been working through the text in the last couple of days and what I find striking is that although this volumes starts in 2001 and runs until 2007, the sexuality agenda is rather lacking. You might have expected civil partnerships for example to be located somewhere in the index but no, it is conspicuously absent. Though Blair will probably be remembered as a Prime Minister who had it all and blew it on an unpopular war, he was genuinely transformative on the social agenda. The age of consent, repeal of section 28, Civil partnerships, Gay Adoption Rights, Gay Forces Personnel, Goods and Services and crucially in setting a national tone in which those things become normalised.

Incitement to Hatred

The debate around proposals to extend the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill to include an offence of inciting hate against gay, lesbian and bisexual people. At the top of the week Justice Secretary announced the proposals but they have been heavily criticised - by the LGB community. At least, the "public" face of that community that has criticised the proposals. Columnist Paris pointed out that should these proposals be accepted it would only be a matter of time before jokes about the Welsh or Irish would also be illegal. Whilst I agree with this analysis it seems to me that these arguments could have been applied to previous legal provisions relating to incitement of racial hatred. Read the story at: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-5737.html

Interestingly the campaign group Stonewall welcomed the group which for me is another sign that these is apparently an increasing gulf between campaign organisations like Stonewall and the LGB "masses". The idea of "inciting hatred" offences is a distinctly New Labour one and not one that has populist roots - in contrast to say moves to equalise the age of consent or repeal section 28. Just as the moves on goods and services seemed badly thought out and the product of out of touch administrators so too does this proposal.

Background documents and ministerial correspondence relating to the Bill can be viewed at:
http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/criminal-justice-bill.htm

Catholic Care

It's also reported in the latest GT that the Catholic adoption agency 'Catholic Care' is stopping finding parents for children in care due to the new Goods & Services Sexual Orientation Regulations. They found places for about 20 children each year so they weren't one of the big players but it's still a sad story.